LAND REFORM LEAGUE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 55, 10 February 1872, Page 4

LAND REFORM LEAGUE.

[lndependent.] The doctrines of the " Land Reform League" in England seem to have penetrated in no inconsiderable degree to the neighboring colony of Victoria. The society in England which is, or was under the presidency of that astute political economist, John Stuart Mill, has been formed for the purpose of inculcating the principle that the land of a nation is and always should be the property of the nation, and that it should of itself be the means of raising the funds necessary for the government of the country. Nothing in the shape of communal doctrine is intended by the programme of the " Land Eeform League." Its adherents do not propose anything in the direction of a division of land amongst the population. All they advocate is that the land is the inalienable property of the State, and should be disposed of for the advantage of the commonwealth. They hold that no man has a right to possess land which he does not turn to some profitable purpose, and that no man shall enjoy the full benefit of the increased value which his holding may acquire through the improvements and exertions made by the community as a whole. But the strongest argument in the favor of the principle thus enunciated is, that if the State was possessed of the land, and merely allowed it to be used by occu piers for useful purposes, it could out of the rental or premium paid for such use defray all the costs of Government withouthardly any other form of taxation. The great difficulty in giving effect to such a principle in the old country is the extinguishment of vested rights which have accrued under the old system ; and no doubt this is a difficulty almost insurmountable in England. But no such difficulty—or at any rate if it exist it is only in a very small degree — obtains in the new countries of the Australasian colonies. The only difficulty of any importance is that of edu eating the public mind to understand that the old-fashioned prejudice in favor of freehold occupation is not only unprofitable to the bona fide occupier but is unprofitable to the State. The idea which lies at the base of our land system is that we should first alienate

the land and then tax it, or tax the occupier through various industrial channels. But the result is that whilst vast'acres of land are parted with and held without profitable occupation for many years, the bulk of our taxation falls only upon the real occupiers and cultivators, whilst the " holder for time" practically escapes —although he is all the period of non-occupancy reaping the fruits of the improvements of his neighbors and the expenditure of the State upon public works in the increased value of his property. Now, nothing is clearer as an abstract principle of right than that the holder of land—which he does not profitably occupy—should not be entitled to the full increase of value which has been created by means in which he took no part. But the Land Reform League goes further, and says that even a beneficial occupier is entitled to give to the State periodically a proportion of the increased value of his holding as compensation for the share which the State has had in giving it that increased value. The process by which the land may be made the supporter of Government may be briefly described thus: That the State should only dispose of its land under rental for a certain period of years ; and that at the expiration of that time the land should be revalued, the State taking a fair share of the increased value.

If such a system were pursued in new countries like New Zealand the necessity for indirect taxation would almost be superseded. And what is more, a full stop would be put to the speculative purchases of those who simply hold the land until it has, by no exertion of thenown, achieved a position value. Speaking on this subject, the Melbourne " Argus" admits that if tlio views of the Land Reform Society had been recognised and acted upon at the time Victoria became a recognised dependency of the British Crown that colony would now 7 "be in possession of a revenue from rent alone which would satisfy all reasonable requirements." But the "Argus" thinks, as most people imbued with English traditions will think—that " the principle of exclusive property in the soil is one which is ingrained in the national character, and any to violate and reverse it would clash with one of the strongest instincts of our race." No doubt this is a great obstacle to the carrying out of any such scheme as that under discussion ; but one is so accustomed now-a-days to see national prejudices give way before logical facts that we do not despair of seeing the principles of the Land Reform League very largely influencing land legislation. Take the case of New Zealand. According to a return laid before Parliament last session, we learn that since the Ist April, 1856, to the 31st December, 1869, four millions six hundred and thirty-nine thousand five hundred and twenty acres of land have been sold, leaving for future disposal thirty-six millions more. The money which the land disposed of realised was only £3,649,183— about fifteen shillings an acre. Now, taking the normal value of money in New Zealand at say eight per cent. —that is to say this is the profit which money generally produces on investments —the rental at this rate of the land disposed of would realise nearly £300,000 per annum, whilst the prospective receipts from the unsold portion would at the same rate amount to £2,880,000. In addition to this there would be say, in thirty or fifty years, as the case might be, an increase in rental consequent upon increased value of fully half as much more. One question is, would landseekers be willing to prefer paying only the interest of their capital for the right to hold lacd for a term of years, and retain the principal to employ upon the land itself. Probably speculators would not do so, but bona fide occupiers and cultivators would. Such a system as that above indicated would be the very best to encourage the profitable occupation of the soil. Land would then fetch what it is really worth, as a chattel to te used and employed. It would no longer be liable to be closed by the purchases of absentees and those who simply possess themselves of land to hold for speculative purposes, and the State would under this system have an uudeniable security for all time for any money it might borrow up to the capital value of the land itself. The subject is a wide one and deserves further and

more critical discussion, which we shall endeavor to give it in a future article.